[AVTCORE] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-avtcore-cryptex-06: (with COMMENT)

[Warren Kumari via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-avtcore-cryptex-06: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-avtcore-cryptex/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for writing this document; like Rob I'm far from an RTP expert, but I
also found it readable and useful.

I do have a question, as well as some nits to try and make if even better.

Question:
"[RFC8285] defines two values for the "defined by profile" field for carrying
one-byte and two-byte header extensions." - RFC8285 defines 0XBEDE, and has a
cute justification. This document defines 0xCODE and 0XC2DE... but it was quite
hard to figure out what the *other* value that RFC8285 defined -- and that's my
issue. Should this document create an IANA registry to track these? Is there
already a registry? E.g: If I magically become an RTP expert and write
draft-ietf-avtcode-even-more-awesome-protocol how do I know not to use any of
these existing numbers?

1: "If BUNDLE is in use and the a=cryptex attribute" - in all of the other
instances where you have 'a=cryptex', you have it enclosed in double-quotes. I
suggest doing so here too for consistency.

2: Section 5.1: "When the mechanism defined by this specification has been
negotiated, sending a RTP packet that has any CSRCs or contains any {RFC8285}}
header extensions follows the steps below." - something went kablooie in your
formatting / markdown / kramdown / whatever and you have an extra '}' breaking
the reference...

3: I got confused when reading "Note that the 4 bytes at the start of the
extension block are not encrypted, as required by [RFC8285]." - it seemed
ambiguous to me. I'd suggest "Note that, as required by [RFC8285], the 4 bytes
at the start of the extension block are not encrypted."

I did already mention that these are nits -- this comes from 'nitpick', which
dictionary.com says is "to be excessively concerned with or critical of
inconsequential details." -- feel free to ignore them :-)